JUDGMENT

Hashim Yeop Sani J:

In this originating motion the applicants are asking for a number of orders the most important among which is an order to set aside the decision of the Pendaftar Geran-Geran Tanah Negeri Selangor (Registrar of Titles, Selangor) dated 21 February 1981, refusing to accept for registration the memorandum of transfer and a charge in respect of property of the first applicant held under HS(D) 8502 PT. No. 1 Jalan 14/48 in the Mukim of Petaling Jaya. The applicants also seek for a declaration that the restriction in interest endorsed on the document of title of the said property expired on 17 August 1979.

From the affidavit of the lawful attorney of the first applicant, sworn on 10 June 1981, the following facts are disclosed. The first applicant is and was at all material times admittedly the registered proprietorof the property in question. By a sale and purchase agreement dated 25 March 1980, he agreed to sell and the second and third applicants agreed to purchase the property subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. A memorandum of transfer dated 5 May 1980, was duly executed and the second and third applicants also executed a charge in favour of the 4 applicant, a finance company.

To digress a little here, the said affidavit also exhibited copy of the title of the said property - "MSY2". It can be seen that p. 1 of the title carries the following endorsement:

`restriction in interest'. `The land hereby leased shall not be transferred or leased for a period of 15 years without the consent of the Ruler in Council'.

At p. 2 of the title the following particulars also appear:

(1) Tarikh mula-mula diberi milik - 18 August 1964

(2) No. hakmilik asal (tetap atau sementara) QT (R) 2742.

The said memorandum of transfer and charge were thereafter presented for registration to the respondent and these documents were in fact registered but subsequently, however, the registration was cancelled. In his letter dated 21 February 1981, the respondent wrote to the solicitors of the applicants to the effect that the application for registration was rejected on the grounds that the restriction in interest on the said property was according to the respondent still in force. The respondent was of the opinion that the restriction in interest commenced from 9 November 1967, and the period of 15 years will expire only on 8 November 1982 - see affidavit of respondent dated 5 September 1981. It is obvious that the respondent relied on the calculation that the period of 15 years commenced from 9 November 1967, being the date which the alienation of the said land was registered after full payment of premium and other fees was made.

It can be seen clearly that the central and only issue in this case is on what date the restriction in interest commenced. The applicant relies on the particulars appearing on p. 2 of the title which states that the application was given the title on 18 August 1964, and if the restriction in interest commenced on that date it therefore expired on 17 August 1979. Based on this calculation therefore the respondent would be wrong in rejecting the application for registration.

The respondent, on the other hand, relies ons. 78(3) of the National Land Codewhich states that the alienation of State land shall take effect upon registration and the date of registration being 9 November 1967 the period of 15 years has not ended.

It is not disputed that the proper registering authority under the Land Code has the right to reject any instrument on the ground that it is unfit for registration. Counsel for applicant argued that for purposes of calculating the period for the operation of the restriction in interest in this case the question of registration is irrelevant. With respect I totally disagree. Registration is central in the Torrens system and in any statute like the National Land Code which carries the Torrens system. As Edwards J said in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Fels v